More Rolo. Doesn’t bode well for him
- Thread starter chugspig
- Start date
Hilarious that this dumbass will still have other dumbasses defending him.
Wazzu invested a ton of energy into this dude trying to given him all the information they could. I can see why Chun was done with this dude in April.
A few months ago I asked my brother (similar views to Rolo) where he got his misinformation. He listens to one of the right wing nutjob radio programs. I asked him if that show wasn't just an echo chamber of other folks who denied that those who have worked with immunology their entire careers knew what they were talking about, and instead were choosing to believe people who know essentially nothing...he didn't have a good answer. We have not spoken much since that conversation.
The paternalistic tone of the article or at least the characterization of the WSU leadership is on full display. And this is clearly an article meant to say "People who don't want the COVID vaccine are too stupid to understand."
After all the intro text (emphasis mine):
And the only statement they make in the article about the religious exemption is misleading. They say:
Further, their characterization of how sincerely held religious beliefs are determined seems misleading:
After all the intro text (emphasis mine):
Your opinion is wrong. Listen to our experts on why you are wrong. Then they go into Rolo's questions about the vaccine itself. Nowhere was there discussion about religious beliefs or religious exemptions.
And the only statement they make in the article about the religious exemption is misleading. They say:
As already noted the vaccine is morally permissible but it is not obligatory. Indeed, the Church is opposed to mandates. Funny--not funny--they quote Pope Francis' ad hoc statement as if it were a moral commandment. The ignorance of the Church, how she operates and the Church's teaching--including the CDF's statement on the vaccine--is once again obvious.
Further, their characterization of how sincerely held religious beliefs are determined seems misleading:
Of course the Church's official stance has bearing. How could anyone claim to be Catholic and not appeal to the Church's official stance? It informs the faith of the individual. While it may not be primary, it certainly is substantial in making the case. Otherwise, why would questions such as "When was the last time you went to church?" even be a question? Of course since Inslee let each organization determine their own exemption requirements, we will probably never know what they asked.
Be careful -- Chun was "repressing and hating on me" is salacious, and press grabbing. Creating bad press is a "tried and true " make it go away settlement tactic. But the exemption evaluation process was blind and separate. In theory, Chun's and Rolo's past statements and actions, played no part in the process because they didn't know whose request was being consider, assuming Rolo did not let the cat out of the bag on the request form. The vast majority of requests were granted, his and the rest of the staffs wasn't. The real legal question is was the denial arbitrary and capricious? Basic admin law is that an agency must follow its own policy. i.e. can't act in a arbitrary and capricious manner or game the system. That did WSu dot all its I's claim isn't sexy or press grabbing, but remains unanswered.
Just like with Robert Barber, this case may not turn general known circumstantial evidence, evidence that clearly does/did not paint Rolo or Barber in sympathetic light. Barber won though he clearly cheap shotted a much smaller man on video.
Just like with Robert Barber, this case may not turn general known circumstantial evidence, evidence that clearly does/did not paint Rolo or Barber in sympathetic light. Barber won though he clearly cheap shotted a much smaller man on video.
People are listening to their own echo chambers and not using any rational though. Do Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity bring anything of substance?
The guy had a private audience with a renowned subject matter expert. There is no rational reason for him to deny the science of vaccines. This all boils down to him stomping his feet because he doesn't like being told he doesn't know everything.
You sound like a pathetic child when you whine like this. Trying acting like an adult.
If the information in the article is accurate - which is a big if when talking about almost any media article - it does seem to weaken Rolo's case.
The fact that the university was putting him in a room with legitimate experts (and Guy Palmer is definitely an expert) six months ago does not indicate that Chun was trying to get rid of him. It means he was being given opportunities to explore his questions. The changing process during that 6 months muddies the water a bit, but that still doesn't indicate that Chun had made a decision. The common perception (in the department) that it was political to Rolo is also interesting - is this based on statements of his, or just supposition? His private expectation that Stanford was his last game as coach (which seems to be borne out in the way he and the players acted post-game) could go either way.
The data indicates that just over 90% of religious exemption requests have been approved at WSU (so far). If no more are approved, the acceptance rate will still be about 78%. That's also significant, as it seems to show that getting approved was not that difficult. It makes the content of his exemption request highly relevant, because it now appears that he either failed to articulate how his beliefs impact the vaccine, or that he refused to do it. Although the review process was blind, I assume that there is a way to retrieve what information he submitted. If it comes out in court that his exemption request said "none of your business," this case is over.
Otherwise, I think this still gets settled just because a settlement is cheaper than a court battle and not worth the PR problems. That is, unless Inslee and Ferguson decide to fight the battle. WSU just wants it to go away.
The fact that the university was putting him in a room with legitimate experts (and Guy Palmer is definitely an expert) six months ago does not indicate that Chun was trying to get rid of him. It means he was being given opportunities to explore his questions. The changing process during that 6 months muddies the water a bit, but that still doesn't indicate that Chun had made a decision. The common perception (in the department) that it was political to Rolo is also interesting - is this based on statements of his, or just supposition? His private expectation that Stanford was his last game as coach (which seems to be borne out in the way he and the players acted post-game) could go either way.
The data indicates that just over 90% of religious exemption requests have been approved at WSU (so far). If no more are approved, the acceptance rate will still be about 78%. That's also significant, as it seems to show that getting approved was not that difficult. It makes the content of his exemption request highly relevant, because it now appears that he either failed to articulate how his beliefs impact the vaccine, or that he refused to do it. Although the review process was blind, I assume that there is a way to retrieve what information he submitted. If it comes out in court that his exemption request said "none of your business," this case is over.
Otherwise, I think this still gets settled just because a settlement is cheaper than a court battle and not worth the PR problems. That is, unless Inslee and Ferguson decide to fight the battle. WSU just wants it to go away.
Clearly the state of Washington has an interest in the outcome and I assume would be opposed to any settlement with Rolo. Can the state compel the university not to settle?
They were experts in virology, epidemiology, and other technical aspects of the vaccine. They were not ethical or religious experts. And I think that was the point that Rolo's lawyer made: they weren't there to talk ethics, just scientific facts.
Is that why he was asking about Bill Gates?
Wouldn't that have been the time where he asks about aborted fetus cells in the vaccines? It appears that Rolovich questions were about side effects and if Bill Gates was behind the vaccines. We don't know what exactly was said, but Palmer stated that nothing religious was brought up. Now, they're saying that he won't discuss that, but if you're talking to a vaccine expert, wouldn't you ask about aborted fetus cells if that is what your entire apprehension is to begin with?
I'm not sure you need to ask about that. The information is publicly available on the manufacturer websites.
Then again, we are talking about narratives here. Perhaps he did ask and either a) ESPN didn't print it or b) Palmer, et al, did share it to keep the narrative friendly to WSU. Shrug.
Willie, I am not one of the legal beagles on this board, but I've been through this process a few times from the employer's end, as have clients of mine who are also friends, so I'll offer a few thoughts.
First, it is not clear to me whether the university has an insurance carrier that is involved, or if the university is self-insured via some sort of state group. I can't feature that WSU has its own self-insurance program, though I suppose it is possible; more likely if the state chooses to self insure the universities for this sort of thing it is through a central group in Olympia. The "outside carrier vs. self insurance" question is relevant in that if an outside carrier is involved, they will have a heavy say in whether the case is settled or litigated. If they can settle for what they consider to be peanut money, they will do so. Even if the state self-insures, there will be people in Olympia who oversee the program, and their role will be to behave in a much similar manner to the people who would be working at an insurance carrier. There is a third possibility...the state may self-insure up to a limited amount, and beyond that they go to a carrier who insures them only against a catastrophic loss. In that case, the goal of the attorney will be to settle near the high end of what ever the state will cover themselves, because unless the lawyer has a slam dunk case, the catastrophic policies will often go to the litigation mat due to the amount of money involved, and the risk/reward of a contingency pay day diminishes for the lawyer. The lawyer may have to guess that amount, because I don't believe that sort of information falls under the public information laws (for obvious reasons).
Second, as to compulsion. My experience has been that in most cases a policy holder cannot be bound by the insurance carrier to settle. However, every policy has coverage limits, as well as limitations on the carrier's liability in the event of misconduct by the insured. If the policy holder opts not to settle, and the award exceeds the coverage limits, they will be responsible for the excess. And...pouring salt in the wound...if the lawsuit's conclusion includes any sort of determination of misconduct by the insured (which is not only possible, it is actually likely in the event of a large award), then the insurance carrier may be completely off the hook and the entire judgement will have to be paid by the insured. (note: if WSU is completely self-insured, either by themselves or through the state, this doesn't apply...and it is the single biggest factor IMHO in whether the final result in the settlement decision would be the same for insured vs. self insured if WSU has any reason to think they may lose a case). For these reasons, the insurance company has a number of potential levers they can pull in "persuading" their client to settle...and that is often why settlements occur. Often the insurance company and insured will have a very strong case, but choose not to gamble on getting an unpredictable jury. The ambulance chasers recognize this, of course, and use it to their advantage. Further, they make massive contributions both individually and corporately to friendly legislators (who usually themselves are attorneys) to perpetuate and make worse the entire tort system. Long story short, it becomes another parasitical cost of doing business in that particular state.
exactly, he could have asked any question he wanted to. he chose to ask about bill gates. No mention of religious issues at all, just as he didn't mention religious issues to June Jones. Because there are none, just a way to try and get around the mandate
You libtards are the worst. So much garbage coming from you it's unbelievable. You honestly think after 2 years it's still about covid19? You are a dribbling retard if you believe that.
oh look another conspiracy theory guy
Thanks for the enlightening read - totally out of my wheelhouse and much appreciated.
I was wondering (assuming too much?) if the University does in fact settle with Rolo does this in any way potentially benefit others who were fired from a state job - does it set any type of precedent that would be against the states interests.
My understanding is that typically in settlements the defendant admits no wrongdoing. And from a strictly legal standpoint, I don't think it can be cited. Though I suspect it would be fodder for other lawyers and may influence other defendants to cave in and settle much sooner. Others may see it as a sign that the case is unwinnable and settle. But I don't think the courts would cite any settlements if there is no admission of fault.
Ever since I got my Pfizer I have had this irresistible urge to buy Microsoft products and donate to the Gates foundation.
Well, in some circumstance, perhaps:
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires judicial approval of class action settlements. Under Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), class action settlements must meet all of Rule 23's requirements except manageability. Thus judicial approval of a settlement class can place defendants at risk of later having the settlement class cited as "precedent" for certifying litigation classes in other actions.
corporate.findlaw.com
Of course, not being a lawyer I don't know what the Rule 23 requirements are. But it sounds like it is very limited in scope, and this is for federal rules. Perhaps only class action lawsuits? Shrug. A WA attorney could answer better.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires judicial approval of class action settlements. Under Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), class action settlements must meet all of Rule 23's requirements except manageability. Thus judicial approval of a settlement class can place defendants at risk of later having the settlement class cited as "precedent" for certifying litigation classes in other actions.
Settlement Classes As Precedent In Litigation Classes - FindLaw
Settlement Classes As Precedent In Litigation Classes. Find out more about this topic, read articles and blogs or research legal issues, cases, and codes on FindLaw.com.
corporate.findlaw.com
Of course, not being a lawyer I don't know what the Rule 23 requirements are. But it sounds like it is very limited in scope, and this is for federal rules. Perhaps only class action lawsuits? Shrug. A WA attorney could answer better.
Oh look another limp wristed over weight purple haired blob of shit
While this op-ed does have some facts, its is smothered in emotional bullshit and makes me want to disregard anything worthwhile within.
Katie Lane's story is completely irrelevant other to paint Rolo as a villian and imply that people like him are responsible for her father's death - complete garbage. Then he gives her the last word - "I want people to have more empathy." WTF does that mean or have anything to do with anything? Oh, that's right, Rolo purposely didn't get the vaccine so that he could be a walking plaguebearer and kill nice people like poor Katie's father... who also refused to get the vax.
Honestly, can we just get back to blaming WSU/ Chun for TH's death? I mean, where was Chun's empathy then? After all, WSU and Chun haven't done enough to honor Tyler and his family, right?
Katie Lane's story is completely irrelevant other to paint Rolo as a villian and imply that people like him are responsible for her father's death - complete garbage. Then he gives her the last word - "I want people to have more empathy." WTF does that mean or have anything to do with anything? Oh, that's right, Rolo purposely didn't get the vaccine so that he could be a walking plaguebearer and kill nice people like poor Katie's father... who also refused to get the vax.
Honestly, can we just get back to blaming WSU/ Chun for TH's death? I mean, where was Chun's empathy then? After all, WSU and Chun haven't done enough to honor Tyler and his family, right?
And being magnetized helps me avoid losing my car keys.
Good point. Though it may interfere with the signals being received...maybe the Dan Rather incident was an example of an early prototype?
Keep in mind gentlemen, none of us have any idea as to what all of the questions were that were asked by Rolo during his meeting with the professor. We also don't know what all of the questions were that were asked by the writer of the professor.
Should we rename this site Covid Zone or Vaccine Watch?
I still refer to the site as Cougzone since that was what is was named
before Britton came in and tried to put his stamp on the site before bolting...so leaning toward that variation...but either one suits.
Back in the day, we could have named it Wulff Watch...but thats neither here nor there.
I still refer to the site as Cougzone since that was what is was named
before Britton came in and tried to put his stamp on the site before bolting...so leaning toward that variation...but either one suits.
Back in the day, we could have named it Wulff Watch...but thats neither here nor there.
Paul Wulff is 1-0 as an unvaccinated interim head football coach.
You guys are still debating this? Are you waiting for that lightning bolt comment that changes the other guys opinion?
Very good sponge. Even Yaki would be happy with that.
We could also sprinkle in a little Brink-Swogger for good measure....and the Tuel Flu too
Last edited:
The FLU that kills as many Americans a year as Covid?We could also sprinkle in a little Brink-Swogger for good measure....and the Flu too
Gotta be honest. I think Bill gates had to chip people so he could track the woman he was rumored to be with Clinton and Jeffrey Toobin...I mean Epstein. I gotta say I think I would be a tad more scared of Google and Facebook tracking me then Bill Gates needing to put a chip in my body.
Now Bill Gates did surprise me when I found out he had an arrangement with his soon to be ex that he could spend one weekend a year with an ex girlfriend. While I love my ex girlfriends and thank them for putting up with me, there was a reason why I am an ex-boyfriend and they are an ex girlfriend.
That would be wishing Paul Wulff would become our next coach. Been there, done that.
"COVID Zone" is too limiting. I suggest seeing if www.politicsandneedlessarguingbythesame8people.com is available. Will have more staying power.
